On the lookout for a rangefinderesque digital. However, as I look on Flickr I don't like digital images at all. They have this plasticky, glowy feel, that looks really bad compared to film, especially on the human white skin. But maybe it's just the screen. On a nice paper, the digital might catch-up.

Anyway, to my eyes the M8 is the only one who gives a film-like, beautiful texture (is it the camera..., is it the lens...?).

I like the idea of the X100 and X-Pro 1, but both of them produce those ugly digital files I was saying about.

So, my question is this: is it worth buying an M8 in 2012? I don't have a problem with loud shutter, filters, but I would like to go above 640 ISO on a camera that costs the same as the X-Pro 1...

You won't get the same high ISO abilities as you would on some more recent cameras. That said I still use a M8 and am happy overall with it. You may be able to get some extend range using Lightroom plugins to deal with noise. And of course if you have a nice fast lens it becomes less of an issue...

I have an M8, and I really like the files it produces. Not plastic, not quite like film... A happy medium. And yes, black and white converted files from the M8 are beautiful.... I end up converting most of my RAWs to black and white.

Plus, with their prices decreasing... The M8 becomes more and more of a viable choice for a digital rangefinder.

Nothing wrong with the M8, which I have had for five years. You know the main shortcomings (e.g., shutter sound, performance at higher ISO, cropped image). As has been noted, it does very well in B&W and well in color.

Per your mention of film, film is film--and digital does not equate with it today. Nothing is the same, not even the MM (though I'd love to have an MM). The process, the rendering, the DR, the grain, use of ISO, instant option for color vs. B&W: "everything" with film differs from digital.

I've had my M8 for about a year now and it has become my favorite camera. The ccd sensor output is almost film like I think. With some fast glass and staying under iso640, as others already suggested, it isn't too limiting really in daily use. I even take it to low light concerts without worry.

Just had two 20 x 16 inch canvas prints done of head and shoulders shots, very happy for people to walk up and count the eyelashes which show no digital artefacts, it was carefully sharpened, but you can't put in what wasn't there to start with. I have had paper prints of the same size made previously from several frames with no issues at all. All these are full frame. I can see the point of more pixels if you are needing to crop at all extensively.

M8.2 here. A great camera for good light, especially backlight which becomes quite translucent. Main lens is a 35mm Summilux, tack sharp wide open. If and when the LCD unit breaks, I'll be ready to upgrade to full frame. I like the looks of the ME and also the fact that it still uses the CCD sensor.

the M8 is a fantastic camera....and IF you are shooting black & white....you really cannot do any better, unless you are getting a Monochrom.

Plus 1.... I actually just bought an M8u and it has changed how I feel about digi! Also, THE ONLY way to tell how prints will look is to do prints. I have compared wet prints from my dark room to prints from my M8 and Epson 3000 and its pretty damned close!

JI have had paper prints of the same size made previously from several frames with no issues at all. All these are full frame.

I've made 12x18" prints and I start to see it look it is deteriorating upon up close inspection, so what do you mean by no issues at all? Meaning at a viewing distnace of a few feet? The native print size for a 10mp sensor is 8x12" or so... so, it's only natural that it starts to go downhill after that. I have a feeling my larger MP cameras are spoiling me and making the M8 large prints not stand up anymore. However, they are no worse than any c-prints of that size I've made with 35mm film.

I find that using the M8 side by side with an M9 makes the perfect set. The crop factor is not anymore a problem, and using the M9 for higher ISO is also possible. I use the M8 for B&W while I use the M9 for color. The M8 is for portraits, while the M9 is for wide angle. Both manage the normal perspective well.

So, my question is this: is it worth buying an M8 in 2012? I don't have a problem with loud shutter, filters, but I would like to go above 640 ISO on a camera that costs the same as the X-Pro 1...

I still consider M8 the best buy at its price point in 2012, but obviously I am speaking based on my own needs, preferences, and experiences. There are however so many other sets of needs and preferences that one can arrive at very different conclusion.

the fact is, the IR sensitivity of the M8 is unique.....it's pretty much the perfect B&W shooter, unless one has the $$$ for a Monochrome.

You keep saying that as if it were a given and not an opinion. What cameras have you directly compared it with?

I have owned the M8, R-D1, and M9 (and now the X-Pro) and to me even the Epson produced better looking B&W than the M8 (it also has the "unique" IR characteristic). And it was much more usable at high ISO, with a far better noise pattern.

And, while I am not a huge fan of the digital B&W look, the M9 was every bit as capable as the M8 after processing, and it was far more flexible given the better high ISO results. I have thousands of photos from both and honestly see no meaningful advantage to the M8.

I'm not saying it doesn't produce good images, but it can't be denied that the M8 is very long in the tooth, and a somewhat risky proposition due to the servicing situation. My recommendation, if one must have a mechanical RF digital, is to save for the M9, ME, or new M. If you are more flexible with regard to the RF mechanism, you do yourself a disservice ignoring the Fujis.

I just used the 28mm Rokkor on the M8 for a perspective that is similar to a 28mm perspective with a 37mm crop. It is a great camera. I have started to shoot in DNG for better results. The crop can b limiting at times if you are using only the M8 and you do not have a very wide angle lens with you when you want to use a wide angle lens. On the other hand, using the M8 with a 50mm sharp lens for portraits is awesome. The lens shows then a crop for a 67mm lens. Most old lenses are very sharp in the center but less sharp at the edges. A crop will give you the sharp part. For example, using a vintage Rigid Summicron gives me a high resolution and overall sharp lens on the M8.

Switched to my M9, the Rokkor is a 28mm wide angle lens, and the Rigid Summicron is back a 50mm lens.

Just curious, what size prints are you guys routinely making with the M8?

M8 files: I've made detailed urban architecture prints up to 11x14 that hold up viewed close. Low iso, on tripod, zeiss lenses, stopped down. I've made people prints up to 20x30 that hold up pretty well, these would be handheld, med iso, good glass. I've made some club prints at 12x18 at hi iso with LR3/4 noise reduction that hold up, allowing for a little grit.

M8 files seem to interpolate pretty well, up to a point.

All paper-based, none printed on canvas which can offset a lot of faults, of course. Larger prints are why I saved and moved to an M9 - more resolution helps.

Really curious to print from a MM.

__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

The photographer chances upon a scene that fascinates him. He longs to be a part of it ... recording the scene and including within it his vicarious representative, the participating observer. --- Geoff Dyer
Gear: more than enough, film and digital

I'm not saying it doesn't produce good images, but it can't be denied that the M8 is very long in the tooth, and a somewhat risky proposition due to the servicing situation. My recommendation, if one must have a mechanical RF digital, is to save for the M9, ME, or new M. If you are more flexible with regard to the RF mechanism, you do yourself a disservice ignoring the Fujis.

i'm not saying the M8 is the ultimate camera or anything...but for its price point, it is the best bargain in the Leica used market. There are no serviceability issues aside from the LCD....and if there is an LCD issue, Leica is really taking care of those customers with great options.

The original poster asked about the M8. The bottom line is that it is STILL a hell of a camera....i am enjoying my M8.1 (updated) greatly.....and really enjoying photography again----and that is THE most important thing.

FWIW....the original poster bought an M8, as posted in the L-Forums post he made (same post as here). So he made the right decision!

i'm not saying the M8 is the ultimate camera or anything...but for its price point, it is the best bargain in the Leica used market. There are no serviceability issues aside from the LCD....and if there is an LCD issue, Leica is really taking care of those customers with great options.

The original poster asked about the M8. The bottom line is that it is STILL a hell of a camera....i am enjoying my M8.1 (updated) greatly.....and really enjoying photography again----and that is THE most important thing.

FWIW....the original poster bought an M8, as posted in the L-Forums post he made (same post as here). So he made the right decision!

Well, I can't really argue any of those points.

It is a very nice camera - and the best value in a digital Leica. And And I could find myself wishing I had one with a bad LCD if they extend the good deals to the new M (and it ends up being a lot better than the M9/ME).

You won't get the same high ISO abilities as you would on some more recent cameras. That said I still use a M8 and am happy overall with it. You may be able to get some extend range using Lightroom plugins to deal with noise. And of course if you have a nice fast lens it becomes less of an issue...

the M8 is a fantastic camera....and IF you are shooting black & white....you really cannot do any better, unless you are getting a Monochrom.

So true.

Having owned a M8 for 4 years and a M9 for 2 years, I think the M8 is a far better B&W camera. The M9's sensor was based on Kodachrome 64 slide film and the files often seem to have the same DR as Kodachrome. I'm always having to fuss with the shadows whenever I make a B&W conversion from a M9 file. On the other hand, the extended IR sensitivity of the M8 gave more shadow detail and the tones were smoother. There is really no other Leica - film or digital - that can compare to the look of a M8 B&W conversion. I'm sorry I sold mine.

Someone mentioned Zeiss lenses... if you are going to do a lot of work with IR, the Zeiss lenses are marked for IR. Of course you can work out a distance setting for any Leica lens, but it is nice to have it already in place.

All lenses with a DOF scale have an IR marker - it is the DOF mark two stops down. like 5.6 on a 2.8 lens, or 4.0 on a 2.0 lens, etc. Unless the lens has apo correction, then it is just one stop down or even spot-on.

All lenses with a DOF scale have an IR marker - it is the DOF mark two stops down. likeb 5.6 on a 2.8 lens, or 4.0 on a 2.0 lens, etc. Unless the lens has apo correction, then it is just one stop down or even spot-on.

You're right and that is often how I shot my M8 with either my 35 or 50 Summicrons. But it is nice to be able to see a blue line when, say, you are shooting a model and you have enough other things to worry about. I never could bring myself to marking any of my Summicrons.

Having owned a M8 for 4 years and a M9 for 2 years, I think the M8 is a far better B&W camera. The M9's sensor was based on Kodachrome 64 slide film and the files often seem to have the same DR as Kodachrome. I'm always having to fuss with the shadows whenever I make a B&W conversion from a M9 file. On the other hand, the extended IR sensitivity of the M8 gave more shadow detail and the tones were smoother. There is really no other Leica - film or digital - that can compare to the look of a M8 B&W conversion. I'm sorry I sold mine.

Someone mentioned Zeiss lenses... if you are going to do a lot of work with IR, the Zeiss lenses are marked for IR. Of course you can work out a distance setting for any Leica lens, but it is nice to have it already in place.

The M9 sensor was based on Kodachrome 64? I have never heard that ( or of any sensor based in a particular film), where did your info come from?

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.